Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:41:34 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        "Yang, Fei" <fei.yang@intel.com>,
        Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@collabora.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>,
        Thinh Nguyen <thinhn@synopsys.com>,
        Tejas Joglekar <tejas.joglekar@synopsys.com>,
        Jack Pham <jackp@codeaurora.org>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux USB List <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Avoiding DWC3 transfer stalls/hangs when using
 adb over f_fs
Message-ID: <20200206184134.GA11027@infradead.org>
References: <20200122222645.38805-1-john.stultz@linaro.org>
 <ef64036f-7621-50d9-0e23-0f7141a40d7a@collabora.com>
 <02E7334B1630744CBDC55DA8586225837F9EE280@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <87o8uu3wqd.fsf@kernel.org>
 <02E7334B1630744CBDC55DA8586225837F9EE335@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <87lfpy3w1g.fsf@kernel.org>
 <CALAqxLUQ0ciJTLrmEAu9WKCJHAbpY9szuVm=+VapN2QWWGnNjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200206074005.GA28365@infradead.org>
 <87ftfn602u.fsf@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87ftfn602u.fsf@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:29:45PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > No, it shoudn't.  dma_map_sg returns the number of mapped segments,
> > and the callers need to remember that.
> 
> We _do_ remember that:

That helps :)

> that req->request.num_mapped_sgs is the returned value. So you're saying
> we should test for i == num_mapped_sgs, instead of using
> sg_is_last(). Is that it?

Yes.

> Fair enough. Just out of curiosity, then, when *should* we use
> sg_is_last()?

Outside of sg_next/sg_last it really shoud not be used at all as far
as I'm concerned.